Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)

VAR - Love or Hate?

  • Total voters
    1,296
A Liverpool fan I know just wrote me complaining about the Origi situation. Apparently he didn't know VAR can't give retrospective yellows for diving, so I let him know. Annoying, though
 
IloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyouIloveyouIhateyou
 
LARulz said:
Honest question, how far back can VAR go? You can get a foul not given a minute before but if playing against City you won't see the ball again. They then score. Can VAR be used for that?
Click to expand...

It's less to do with time and more to do with phases of play afaia.
 
No idea how the United goal can stand. The two questions are is it a clear foul? and is it the same phase of play? The answer to both is clearly yes. Impressive how badly implemented this has been in the Prem. No other league is anywhere near as bad at running VAR as the Prem.

Wumminator said:
Why was it not used when Henderson smashed one of our players in the face? I thought that was the point of VAR , so players can’t get away with shit like that. One day we will have a game what is refereed correctly but until then it hasn’t been used totally horrendous today. At least when they’ve gone to it they’ve used it well.
Click to expand...

It would have been a yellow so they can only look if its considered worthy of a red essentially.
 
I think Origi was already prepared to go down before the contact, but I do think it was a foul.

My biggest issue is how far does VAR go.
If Barca won the ball from a 'foul' and then played 50 passes in 4minutes of possession and then scored, should that be reviewed?

I get that if you literally fouled the right back, whipped a ball in and scored from it sure, but if you're gonna review a foul just because it resulted in a goal a few passes later while covering 2/3rds of a pitch, then you're gonna have to review every foul because even if it doesn't result in a goal, it's changed the course of the game
 
Uniteds goal - defo no foul. Origi could actually be booked for diving
Liverpool’s goal - Mane fecking caught it.
Henderson smashes Young in the face - not worth looking at apparently. :lol:
 
LARulz said:
Honest question, how far back can VAR go? You can get a foul not given a minute before but if playing against City you won't see the ball again. They then score. Can VAR be used for that?
Click to expand...
basic rule is if Liverpools defence gets a chance to get reset a new phase of play has begun and the Lidelof foul would become irreleant
 
sullydnl said:
It's less to do with time and more to do with phases of play afaia.
Click to expand...

Sorry to sound stupid, what is the definition of a phase of play? Ball going out of being turned over? If it is, then again, City can keep the ball for 5 mins uninterrupted and then score
 
Jimmy Skitz said:
basic rule is if Liverpools defence gets a chance to get reset a new phase of play has begun and the Lidelof foul would become irreleant
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a foul. Let me ask you, is every contact between two opposing players a foul? Like every time they touch each other? Or does it have to be an actual foul? Origi clearly dived
 
Wumminator said:
Why was it not used when Henderson smashed one of our players in the face? I thought that was the point of VAR , so players can’t get away with shit like that. One day we will have a game what is refereed correctly but until then it hasn’t been used totally horrendous today. At least when they’ve gone to it they’ve used it well.
Click to expand...
If it is not a straight red, VAR doesn't care.
 
LARulz said:
Honest question, how far back can VAR go? You can get a foul not given a minute before but if playing against City you won't see the ball again. They then score. Can VAR be used for that?
Click to expand...

It's to do with whether its the same phase of play or not. Chinese league has disallowed goals for a foul about 120 seconds before the goal was scored (which is a joke). If City pass the ball for 30 passes then at some point a new phase of attack will most likely have started.
 
Also just noticed the tag line, not sure how long that’s been there and what it means ?
 
LARulz said:
Honest question, how far back can VAR go? You can get a foul not given a minute before but if playing against City you won't see the ball again. They then score. Can VAR be used for that?
Click to expand...
Until the last whistle.
 
LARulz said:
Honest question, how far back can VAR go? You can get a foul not given a minute before but if playing against City you won't see the ball again. They then score. Can VAR be used for that?
Click to expand...

Its a bit vague in PL.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297401

But this is KNVB guidelines and I think also used in World cup 18

‘Attacking Possession Phase (APP)’ Consultations with football stakeholders suggest that football would expect that only the phase of play leading up to a goal/penalty incident/DOGSO should be reviewed i.e. from the point at which the attacking team last gained possession of the ball and started the phase of play that led to the goal/penalty incident. A major underlying principle is that until the attacking team gained possession of the ball, their opponents had the ‘freedom’ to use the ball and thus any ‘missed’ event before they lost possession could have been avoided. This concept is similar to the normal football situation where a defender has time to clear the ball but instead attempts a pass to another defender which is intercepted by an attacker who then scores – the defender had possession and could have prevented the error which led to the goal. ‘attacking phase possession (APP)’ will require the referee (assisted by the VAR) to determine: • the point at which the attacking team gained possession of the ball and then • the point at which the phase of play that led to the goal/penalty incident started ‘gaining possession’ The attacking team will be considered to have gained possession when they: • take a restart or • take possession of the ball from ‘open play’ (when neither team has possession) or • take possession of the ball when it is ‘lost’ by the opponents (e.g. poor pass, clearance etc.) or • gain possession as a result of a challenge for the ball with an opponent The following are not considered a clear gain of possession: • a save, deflection or rebound that does not result in control of the ball • a clearance that does not reach or is not controlled by a team mate Where the attacking team gained possession as a result of an offence or infringement of the Laws of the Game, the goal or penalty kick under review can only be overturned if the referee made a clear error in failing to penalise the offence/infringement. Consequently, a goal/penalty kick can only be changed if the referee made a clear error by failing to penalise a Law 12 offence which resulted in the attacking team taking possession of the ball: • in ‘open play’ or • when it is ‘lost’ by the opponents or • as a result of a challenge for the ball with an opponent 22/67 Restarts are not reviewed because The Laws of the Game do not permit a restart decision to be changed once play has restarted. Incorrect restarts are not reviewed because they are not match-changing situations and should be detected by the match officials. The VAR will assist the referee to establish the APP but if the ball travels beyond the camera’s view the referee and other match officials will make the ‘possession’ decision. ‘attacking phase’ Defining the point at which the ‘attacking phase (move)’ starts will be subjective but should include deciding: • the point at which the attacking team advanced with the ball towards their opponents’ penalty area and, if the attacking team has a long period of ‘keep ball’ possession, the point at which they either cross the halfway line (for ‘keep ball’ in their own half) or, if ‘keep ball’ is in their opponents’ half, the point at which a clear forward/attacking phase of play starts Judging ‘attacking possession phase’ will require co-operation between the referee and VAR, and potentially with ARs (and AARs). This concept will be further defined during the education phase using footage and simulated on-field situations. It will require the VAR and referee to adopt a ‘what would football expect?’ approach and apply the principles and their knowledge and experience to differentiate between ‘denying an obvious goalscoring opportunity’ and ‘stopping a promising attack’. APP effectively ‘resets’ the starting point for the reviewable phase of play prior to a goal or a penalty incident.
Click to expand...
https://www.knvb.nl/downloads/bestand/9844/var-handbook-v8_final
 
Theafonis said:
Why
Click to expand...

I just don't like it, it doesn't achieve what its meant to and it's way too inconsistent in its implementation.

Refs get things wrong sometimes, this is sport and it's the way of the world. The only reason VAR exists is money and for me it should have been left out of the game.

People will pile on I'm sure and I don't care, it's ruining the sport.
 
dev1l said:
Same here. Origi made a meal out of it.
Click to expand...
Origi was already going down. That's the thing, it's not a 'clear and obvious' mistake by the ref, it was subjective to begin with. He even seen it. By it's own rules, Var can't intervene.
 
Both goals should have stood in my opinion. It shows the problem with how VAR has been implemented: two debatable situations, people still disagree after the replays. VAR simply shouldn't be used for that. If it's still debatable after the replay, it's not an obvious error, and the ref's call should stand.
 
Rado_N said:
I just don't like it, it doesn't achieve what its meant to and it's way too inconsistent in its implementation.

Refs get things wrong sometimes, this is sport and it's the way of the world. The only reason VAR exists is money and for me it should have been left out of the game.

People will pile on I'm sure and I don't care, it's ruining the sport.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
1st one isn't a foul for me. There's contact on his leg, then a delay, then he flings his head back and goes over.

2nd one I'm not sure. Doesn't look like deliberate handball, but I guess the rule has changed for handball leading up to a goal. I thought it was scoring with the hand, rather than just a handball happening in the build up?
 
parkthebuslads said:
Looked a foul to me, unless kicking a player is allowed.
Click to expand...
It’s soft, but could be a foul. He does get touched but throws himself to the ground. I’d be incensed as a Liverpool fan but incensed as a united fan if it was disallowed as well. It’s one of those things which VAR just can’t fix. Fully subjective. The ref also saw it and the precedent this season has been to not really overturn the ref if it’s in full view - something I disagree with, but something that has benefited and harmed every team in the league equally so far.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
It wasn’t a foul. Let me ask you, is every contact between two opposing players a foul? Like every time they touch each other? Or does it have to be an actual foul? Origi clearly dived
Click to expand...
In my opinion no contact doesn't equal foul but that's not how the game has been reffed for the last decade, going by the standards they have set that was a foul, compared to the penalty we had given against us at Anfield Lindelof practically snapped his leg, that is the standard of decision that is usually given.

People slag off Mike Dean, rightfully so but he is miles ahead or Atkinson, but VAR won't work until Mike Riley is sacked and a new head of PGMOL make they implement it properly
redom said:
Is simulation allowed?
Click to expand...
I got told on other forums after our game at Anfield that it can both be a foul and a dive, that's what this was, might help if refs gave fouls without players going down though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.